Monday, June 27, 2011

Deagan's Kitchen & Bar

Des Ayuno brought up a good point in her criticism of Just Like Mom's: why is Florida only proposing to test welfare recipients for drugs and not other recipients of government largesse - bankers, say, or farmers, or anyone whose lifestyle has been partially or wholly subsidized by taxpayers - i.e., politicians themselves? The logic follows the same patterns as it would for welfare recipients:

Bankers

1) Drug use is illegal.2) Because it is illegal, people should not be using drugs. 3) Unlike many illegal activities, drug use leaves some of its evidence in a person’s body, meaning that we can test for past crimes by testing the person’s body. 4) Drugs cost money. 5) Bailout money was money given to banks approaching bankruptcy so that they could afford to stay open, not only supporting the economy but also providing necessities to millions of Americans. 6) If bankers people did not have the bailouts, they would not be able to afford food. 7) If banks had money, they would not need bailouts. 8) If banks had money, they should spend it supporting the economy and the government which saved them and not on salaries which would go to drugs (an illegal luxury). 9) If banks had money, then the bailouts freed up money for them to spend on drugs. 10) If banks had money, spending it on drugs means that they are not spending it on the economy/government, so that’s money they should be spending on the economy/government and the government is supplementing the bankers' drug use/illegal activity. 11) The government should not supplement illegal activity – here or abroad. 12) Thus, to the extent possible, the government should be doing everything in its power to avoid supplementing activity that violates its own laws.

Farmers1) Drug use is illegal.2) Because it is illegal, people should not be using drugs. 3) Unlike many illegal activities, drug use leaves some of its evidence in a person’s body, meaning that we can test for past crimes by testing the person’s body. 4) Drugs cost money. 5) Farm subsidy money is money that is given to farmers people so that they can afford to run their farms "profitably." 6) If farmers did not have subsidies, they would not be able to afford food or other necessities. 7) If farmers had money, they would not need subsidies. 8) If farmers had money, they should spend it on food and other necessities and not on drugs (an illegal luxury). 9) If farmers had money, then subsidies free up money for them to spend on drugs. 10) If farmers had money, spending it on drugs means that they are not spending it on necessities, so that’s money they should be spending on food and the government is supplementing their drug use/illegal activity. 11) The government should not supplement illegal activity – here or abroad. 12) Thus, to the extent possible, the government should be doing everything in its power to avoid supplementing activity that violates its own laws.

Politicians1) Drug use is illegal.2) Because it is illegal, people should not be using drugs. 3) Unlike many illegal activities, drug use leaves some of its evidence in a person’s body, meaning that we can test for past crimes by testing the person’s body. 4) Drugs cost money. 5) Political salaries are moneys given to politicians so that they can afford food. 6) If politicians did not have salaries, they might not be able to afford food. 7) If politicians had money, they would not need salaries. 8) If politicians had money, they should spend it on necessities and not on drugs (an illegal luxury). 9) If politicians had money, then salaries free up money for them to spend on drugs. 10) If politicians have money, spending it on drugs means that they are not spending it on necessities or their public service, so it is money they should be spending on necessities and the government is supplementing their drug use/illegal activity. 11) The government should not supplement illegal activity – here or abroad. 12) Thus, to the extent possible, the government should be doing everything in its power to avoid supplementing activity that violates its own laws.

Having said that, if I was a politician, farmer or banker, I would take my government funds and go to Deagan's. We had a table for ten on Sunday afternoon and hit their brunch menu; three of us ordered burgers and the rest ordered a variety of breakfasty or healthy items. Frank Todoroff got the chicken salad plate, an amalgam of chicken salad (light on the mayo and heavy on flavor), fruit (berries, grapes and melon slices) and crackers (the wheat kind). My Ohio Beef Burger was barely overcooked and thoroughly juicy; the bacon maintained an incredible level of crispiness throughout, and the fries, while warm and soggy rather than hot and crisp, were ok with the ketchup served in a little tin cup. Babies were held aloft around many of the tables; one little kid had learned to flip his shirt up in order to get beaded necklaces, and he tried to get the others at his table to join in. We sucked down mimosas and coffees and food and left full and content for Sunday evening shenanigans. All in all, it wasn't the best burger in Cleveland - as some amateurs have alleged - but it was reasonably good, and came with a great atmosphere. Bravo, Deagan's - you deserve our welfare, bailout, subsidy and salary cash more than most of the actual recipients.

No comments:

“I see a man taking a break in his highly structured life, reading a newspaper in the park, or a young man sitting on a curb eating a sandwich and reading a book, taking the moment for himself. I celebrate these moments in bronze.” J. Steward Johnson, Jr.